Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Referencing guidelines

When referencing an article sourced from the internet, what would be the preferred referencing guidelines to use on a wikipage? Daniel.Frozenwind (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! You'll get help from here Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated! Daniel.Frozenwind (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

List of deceased admins!

Do we have a list of deceased admins somewhere? --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! You may be looking for Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians or Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Cheers --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I directly quote from other Wikipedia articles?

I want to create a new article for an educational assignment and as well as other references and resources, can I quote from other related articles found on Wikipedia? Leanne Morgan (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! To answer your question, you could use other articles as sources. But not directly. This is how you do it. When you come across something you want from another article you could use it's citation and then write what you want in your article. Then you could cite the excerpt with the same reference in your article. Hope I have answered your question. Happy editing! --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 09:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

For more information see this page. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 09:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Teahouse. You have new messages at Ushau97's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brilliant, thanks for your help! Leanne Morgan (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Content edit

Can text be copy and pasted from outside sources aslong as it is referenced? Rachel L Fisher (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. The answer for your question is yes. As long as the license is compatible with Wikipedia you could use it. But be aware that you cannot use the exact text from sources which are copyrighted. Instead you could just change the text and then use it as a reference. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia and we hope that you will help Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How to find the GOCE article template to mark it "done"

Hi again. I updated one of the articles I edited with the GOCE info with no problems, but when I went to the list to update it by marking the template "done" but I could not find the right template. How do I locate the correct template to mark? I went to the article and pulled up the list of templates on the article but could not find any called doing or anything like that. I searched around for 45 minutes but ended up with nothing. Could one of you kindly editors give me specific directions on how to find and access the correct template to mark an article "done'? Thanks & regards...Montykillies (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If you mean marking that it is done on the page for GOCE requests, then you can simply use {{done}} in the place of {{working}} or {{doing}}. If you mean on the actual article, then I will need to see the article. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, how do I indicate working or doing on an article? If I knew that I could change it to done I assume. I went to the list of 3000+ articles and can see no tags. How do I see the working or doing tags?Montykillies (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, MontyKilles. That would be on the page GOCE Requests. I thought that was the page when you indicated high priority copy edits. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New article "Gerald Stourzh"

I just finished an article in my sandbox on Gerald Stourzh, using partly translations from the German Wikipedia. It is now awaiting review. But the yellow box at the bottom of the article also says that the article "Gerald Stourzh" exists already, and that is wrong. If it sholud exist (could be my fault) then it is empty. HPaul (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello HPaul, welcome to the Teahouse. I am not seeing the same thing you are I guess. User:HPaul/sandbox simply shows a "waitng for review" template at the bottum of the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi HPaul, it might have been because it was in your sandbox and trying to move to the wrong place. I've gone ahead and moved Gerald Stourzh to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerald Stourzh, the normal waiting space for review. The article looks great, good work! heather walls (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

is it possible to delete a "review waiting" box?

Hello, I'd like to delete the "review waiting" box from my User-sandbox and thus be able to continue editing further my article-to-be - to continue on a "clean table = without this yellow info-box. Is it possible? This would remove the text from the review-queue. Or is there another way to do it? Marjarau (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Marjarau, welcome to the Teahouse. You can just delete the {{AFC Submission}} templates and resubmit when you are ready or you can edit it while it's still waiting for review. There is nothing that says that the version reviewed has to be the same as the version when you added it to the review queue. NtheP (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Marjarau. I looked at your draft article on Ilona Harima. From my Google search, she is notable and deserving of an article in en.Wikipedia. I also saw that at least some Finnish sources provide summaries in English. I reorganized your draft article so it is more like other en.Wikipedia articles. If you prefer to do the work yourself, revert my edits. Otherwise, I would enjoy spending some time collaborating. More on your talk page. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, DocTree - thanks for the clarifications, I'd be glad for collaboration. I succeeded in erasing the review waiting box.

External link is still to be done. I hope the sources-section is acceptable. The one reference is the only one in wiki with a good English summary. All other texts are in Finnish only.Thanks, Marjarau (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello DocTree, thanks for the answer on March 4th. Now I have added further reading and external link. And erased sculptor from infobox. Ilona Harima (my mother) made too few sculptures to be noted here. I hope the general reference-level is enough to this short article. I am a biologist-librarian, retired. I went through kindergarten and middle-classes in the English School run by American nuns, here in Helsinki. Am trying my best to keep up my English! Marjarau (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia flag

I was just wondering whether or not Wikipedia has a flag and if it could be created into an article if such flag exists. Thank you Americanxx (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse! You might be thinking about this logo, which is already in the article on Wikipedia. But I doubt that the logo by itself warrants an article.^King Jakob _C2 13:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Or please explain, what do you mean by "flag"! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, here is a Wikipedia flag:

But I don't think this is notable enough for it's own article. — nerdfighter 02:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How to indicate an article has been copy edited or do I

I have finished somewhere about a dozen edits so far, some selected from the urgent list. I am wondering if I need or can, or supposed to do anything to indicate that that particular article has been copy edited and could possibly be removed from the urgent copy edit list?Montykillies (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, MontyKillies. Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Are you working on the list on the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE) Request page? The procedure recommended by the Guild is:

- Select an article to edit from the copyedit requested list.

-Add {{working}}  Working or {{doing}} Doing... indented with a colon under request to inform others (so you don't end up with two editors working at the same time and ending up with a conflict). SingSign with four tildes.

- Edit the article. When you're finished:

- Add {{GOCE|user=UserName|date=date completed}} at the bottom of the talk page of the article. Put your username and the date in so it looks like:

- Go back to the GoCE list to change the working or doing template to {{done}}  Done and sign it with four tildes again to show the date and time.

You should sign up for the March backlog elimination drive. I admire those with the skills to be good copy editors. Alas, I'm great at stating facts concisely and accurately but my prose is rarely described as smooth or flowing. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I am selecting articles from the March list now, and the last few I have edited have been from the list. I have not been marking them with the doing or editing tag while doing them as I have been doing the edit all in one sitting and thought the chances of another editor doing the same article at the same time were small. I was not aware of the update action on the GOCE page. I will see if I can get that done on the articles I have finished editing. However, I do not know how to sign up for the March backlog elimination drive. I have just been doing it.Thanks for the info. I am sure I will be back many times for more help!Montykillies (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with missing sections of sentences

Sometimes I run into sentences that have missing sections and are anchored at the end with a word that I can't find a definition for. An example is an Afgani(?) word that I could not tell if it referred to a mountain, river, town or what. The sentence referred to a valley with a named river flowing through it that branched out and its branches ran to an Zurdallo. The word Zurdallo I could not find a meaning for. A web search turned up only one reference for that word, it was the very article I was editing. What methods can be used in cases like this to fix the article or do you just leave it until more info is known?Montykillies (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Montykillies, This is a common problem on Wikipedia. This is why we have Wiktionary. Could you please post a link to this article that you used as an example.

If there is and article that has very vague information, like your example, you should request the article to be deleted. I hope this helped. If it didn't, you can continue this discussion on my talk page. Hiaw777 ( Talk ) 14:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, MontyKillies. Many thanks for your contributions. I recommend a different approach. It looks like what you are seeing is variations in the Romanization of Arabic. It's a common problem when text written in other alphabets is transliterated into English and a Roman-based alphabet. In this case, I suggest that you add Template:Expert-subject, {{Expert-subject |subject name here |2= |talk= |reason= |date= }} at the top of the article above the other templates criticizing the article. Filled out for the Ajristan District article, the template would look like: {{Expert-subject |Afghanistan |2= |talk= |reason= Contest and explanation is needed for some terms such as '' Zurdallo'' |date=Mar 2013 }} and would show up at the top looking like:

That should attract the attention of a member of WikiProject Afghanistan to have a look. An explanation to give context to the word or perhaps a different translation of the word to a more common English spelling may solve the problem. To get faster action, you can also go to the Project talk page and post a request for help with an article. Sometimes a collaboration with native-speakers of each language can tremendously improve an article.

Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

How long will it take for my contribution of an article to actually become one?

How long will it take for my contribution of an article to actually become one? IM5LOVER (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for trying to create a new article. I think what you want is your draft to be created as an article. If that is what you want, all you have to do is follow the instructions in the box at the top of the draft, where it says: "If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here and press Save page". After that in some time a reviewer will check whether your article is good enough to be included in Wikipedia. If so, the reviewer will move it as an article. Hope this helps. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Making a new page

Hi. I'm trying to create a new page. However, Wikipedia tells me that the article exists already, while it is just a redirection to another article. It is "The Isle of Illusion" and I am getting redirected to "Deltora Quest". How do I get rid of the automatic redirect so I can write the article? Nick1372 (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick. You simply need to edit the redirect into the article. To access the redirect page itself, after navigating to The Isle of Illusion and then being redirected to Deltora Quest (series), you will see at the top of the page, just under the title "(Redirected from The Isle of Illusion)". Click on that blue link to The Isle of Illusion and edit away.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick and welcome to the Wikipedia.

If you think The Isle of Illusion should be a separate article from Deltora Quest (series), either just click on this link or just follow these intructions -

• Go to the article The Isle of Illusion.
• It should redirect you to Deltora Quest (series), with a note "(Redirected from The Isle of Illusion)".
• Click on "The Isle of Illusion" from the note to reach the actual page without getting redirected.

Once you have reached the actual page, you are free to edit it as you see fit, and try to improve it. Don't forget to remove the #REDIRECT [[Deltora Quest (series)]] from the page so it does not redirect.

Hope this helped. Feel free to ask any further questions if you need to!

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Nick1372 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Awkward Images of Public Figures

This question may seem weird, but are awkward photos of public figures acceptable? Like free, legit pictures of Obama picking his nose. I have yet to see one here. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If a wide variety of photos of a person are available on Wikimedia Commons, then the photo selected to illustrate the biography of a person should be a neutral, non-controversial photo. If it is a long biography of a person who had a long career, the lead photo should show the person at "the top of their game", when they were making their most notable contributions. Other photos may be used later in the article. In no case should a photo be selected for the purpose of reflecting badly on the person. The article about Adolph Hitler is a good example. The photos illustrate the article. They are not selected to make him look like a raving lunatic, although such photos of Hitler are readily available. It is the discussion of his crimes in reliable sources that characterizes him, not the photos.

There are many thousands of freely licensed photos of Barack Obama available, so this is not an issue with that biography.

The problem arises when only a single unflattering photo is available of a marginally notable person under an appropriate free license. In most cases, we will use that photo, until a more neutral image becomes available. If the photos is truly appalling, in my opinion, it would be best to leave it out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Out of context images shouldn't be added in Wikipedia articles, but, they can find a "happy home" in Wikimedia Commons! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

entry of a living person

How to judge whether it is proper to establish an entry of a living person, for example, a professor in academic?Sanmishui (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Sanmishui. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidance. You should be able to determine notablility using this guideline. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! I believe what you're looking for is the notability guideline for acdemics. If this person doesn't meet that guideline, you could try the general notability guideline, but otherwise, he is probably not notable. Go Phightins! 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Jinx...you owe me a soda Phightins. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Pepper? Go Phightins! 02:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

reference creator

This screencast (6 mins. 39 secs.) shows how to use RefTools.

I can't find the wikipedia page where I can paste a web site address and get a pretty good ref line. For example, I want to reference this research http://jn.nutrition.org/content/141/6/1202.full.pdf+html what is the fastest way?32cllou (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 32Cllou. I recommend you use RefTools. Hover over the thumbnail and choose full screen before you play it. Lots more details at Referencing for beginners and even more in the navigation box at the bottom of that page. Come back and ask again if you need more detail. For now, take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 02:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, when I went to your talk page to leave a talk-back, I saw that somebody already sent you to that video. Are you looking for a list of templates? Can you be more specific? Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 02:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is an application within Wikipedia, it's own wiki web page, where you enter (paste into) the web address (of the public access version of the research), answer a few basic questions, hit enter, and bingo all the "your information" stuff that goes between those ref's () is populated automatically. Where is that application?32cllou (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC) PS the questions are like is it a web site? do you want it dated?32cllou (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Try DOI filler --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page - Bot Archiving

Something WAS seriously wrong with my talk page. Somehow before I undid it, my Clue Bot III completely deleted everything on my talk page including messages that were left a few hours before. Is this common?? Is it possible that it was vandalism instead?? How do I fix this, permantantly? I think it will happen again, but I still want my message archive ect. Thepoodlechef (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm no expert on Cluebot but a quick look at the way you have the instruction setup on your talk page and Cluebot's instruction shows one big difference. You're setting the age in days and Cluebot's instructions say "The age parameter should be set to the number of hours a thread can go without a reply before it should be archived." - emphasis as per the original. Try changing age to 120 and see if it makes a difference. NtheP (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Name

Hi,

I was just wondering if you can change the name of an article, it isn't published yet. It should be Evelyn not Everlyn.

Here is a link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xlucky_charmx/Everlyn_ellerman

Thanks Zoe Xlucky charmx (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The move function is the arrow down button to the top right tab of the article. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to capitalize the last name.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that. I'll repost with a response of it it worked or not. :) Thepoodlechef (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just want to add one line: see WP:Move! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tagging

I found, through the tag Very Short New Article, a page (Chandler Poché) that would meet the criteria for G10 Speedy Deletion. As a non-admin (or auto confirmed user, for that matter) am I allowed to put a speedy deletion template on the page, or is that restricted to admins? Revolution1221 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Revolution 1221 and welcome to the Teahouse! You absolutely are welcome to recommend articles for speedy deletion whether or not you are an admin...I'm certainly not but I have tagged a boatload of them. I have tagged this one since it was an attack page and we want to remove that ASAP. Thanks for the catch, and in the future, please do tag attack pages as quickly as possible. Thanks and happy editing! Go Phightins! 20:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Best way to proceed

Good afternoon. My company has tasked me with 'updating' it's wiki page. The current page is nowhere close to what I envision our new page to be. the company is Amesbury Sports Park, if that will give you an idea of what I am working with. I am a person with very basic computer skills. I would prefer to use the article wizard as that seems to be the least complicated way of getting a traditional looking wiki page. Is this something that I can do since there is an existing pagge? Am I stuck working with that page? Michelle Amesbury Sports Park (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I hate to break it to you, but the bottom line is that it is a bad idea to edit where you have a conflict of interest. Therefore, you writing your company's article is not likely to reflect a neutral point of view, because even if you do so subconsciously, you're likely going to flaunt it in a way. My suggestion to you would be that you make sure your company meets our notability guidelines (make sure that it's received coverage from a variety of third party reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, etc. and then create a userspace draft which you can submit to Articles for Creation, a venue at which an experienced editor will review your article to ensure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Sorry it's so complex, but we have had issues with people flaunting themselves or their company and Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Thanks. Go Phightins! 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will do as suggested! Michelle Amesbury Sports Park (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...you may also wish to review WP:SPAMNAME.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of a blog to illustrate a disagreement?

Dear editors: I have been editing a section of the article about Handedness which deals with scissors. I would like to add a sentence stating that there is some disagreement about whether left-handed children should be taught to use only left-handed scissors. I found a web site in which people are asked to weigh in with their opinion on this subject. It's not a scientific survey, but it does illustrate the pros and cons nicely with about 100 opinions so far (Survey says...), and my statement would not include anything about which opinion is correct. Is this a situation in which a non-authoritive source could be used? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I suppose you could use the poll if you phrase it a certain way. For instance, "In survey X, 75% of people held position Y" would work, but you'd need an authoritative/reliable source to say "75% of people hold position Y". Does that help?^King Jakob _C2 14:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I just wanted to use the source to illustrate that there is some disagreement. The section I am editing made no mention of that and sent the reader off to a Youtube video promoting left handed scissors that started with an ad for an insurance company. I figured that the purpose of the section was to drive traffic to the video for monetary reasons, so I have been rewriting it from a more neutral point of view. I wasn't going to mention particular numbers from a small survey, which are not likely accurate. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

hi, i see 2 google book sources that might have some reliable info [1]. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 14:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be very careful using a blog to illustrate a disagreement because you could be open to criticism of original research and synthesis. If there is a better source that talks about a disagreement and has examples, I would cite that instead.--LauraHale (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

i would second the note of caution. there are a lot of these "general topics" or even wp:Vital articles, where the references are a grab-bag, (you are correct, this is why we put u-tube in external links). no book, journal search, and list have been done. i would encourage you to do that in a systematic way on article talk, rather than chase item by item: harder, but should produce better article. it's the Wp:Article development process. see also Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't find another site that illustrates the controversy. However, I did find a couple of useful references to add to the section. As to the suggestion that I create a research outline, I will be leaving that to someone else. I came across the article accidentally while working on my interest in Bluegrass music, because it has a section on left-handed instruments. I feel that I have done my duty in reducing it from nearly 70,000 bytes down to 63,000 by removing jargon, repetition and excessive research detail, so I'll return to my previous task. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I have created a stub on Leela Bordia - Could you plz see and tell me if i am on the right path?

Thanks

The iWriter (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello iWriter and welcome to Wikipedia!

Seeing the article, I would say that Leela Bordia might not be able to stay in our encyclopedia. Why? Because I think she is not notable enough to be here.

If you think there is atleast one verifiable external source talking about her, add it. The more the sources, the better. Then the stub might be good enough to stay. Otherwise, we need more sources.

Also, we use our signatures only when talking to each other, so everyone knows who said what. We do not use them while writing articles; and so we do not need to add our signatures there.

Hope this helped! Cheers!

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A Google Books search shows a full page profile of her in this 1996 book. The article needs high quality references to independent sources, and needs to be written from the neutral point of view. All promotional language should be removed. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi iwriter. One thing you need to watch is that a lot of your article is copied almost word for word from various paragraphs in this source, which may also be similar to the one you used. It was her citation for an award she won from the Chamber of Commerce in India. Unfortunately, we cannot accept text copied or closely paraphrased from sources like this because it is a copyright infringement which can get Wikipedia into legal trouble. It would be okay to just quote one sentence from that brochure, but it needs to be inside quotation marks, and the source needs to be credited much more clearly. I find that in writing articles, it's best to gather information from as many different sources as possible before writing. If you depend on only one source, it's much harder to avoid copyright problems. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

here's a harmony magazine article [2], passing mention here [3]; [4], would be better with an interview in business press.Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 17:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Submitted for Review?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Redrice_School

I have written an article, but don't understand its current status. 1) at the top "Article not currently submitted for review." 2) at the bottom is shows "This submission is waiting to be reviewed"

Please. Have I done anything wrong? If so, how to I fix it? Or is it just a matter of waiting for it to be reviewed by someone before it can be made Live? Thank you. Andrewstimothy (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia! As you can see for yourself that article have actually been submitted for review. I guess you didn't read the message which appeared when you submitted it. The message was as follows :

<!-- This will add a notice to the bottom of the page and won't blank it! The new template which says that your draft is waiting for a review will appear at the bottom; simply ignore the old (grey) drafted templates and the old (red) decline templates. A bot will update your article submission. Until then, please don't change anything in this text box and press "Save page". -->

That means a robot will automatically update the status of the submission after some time. You just have to keep on improving the article. Regards. Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help.

Andrewstimothy (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Correcting mispelled word in a title

There is a typo in the spelling of the main title of the Wikipedia article about the American painter Abram Molarsky:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Molasky

The 'r' is missing from his last name.

How can I make that edit?

Frank Beck fbeck@mindspring Frank Beck (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Cullen328 has moved the article. The move function is the arrow down button to the top right tab of the article. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I moved it. Sorry that something came up in the real world that prevented me from explaining the "move " function, which is how we rename articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Doping allegations on Bjørn Dæhlie (skier) page - advice?

Hi, I recently joined Wikipedia to (at least at first) work on Nordic skiing/winter sports pages. So far I have focused on Bjørn Dæhlie's page. There was recently a documentary with (in my view) not well substantiated doping allegations against him. There is now a section about it on his wiki page, some parts more or less unsubstantiated. I am not sure how this should be dealt with, and was wondering if anyone could give some advice. Nje1987 (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nje1987, let me see if I can address this properly.

The article is about a living person. For this reason we have some very strict policies in regards to criticism. A seperated section with a non-neutral heading is not acceptable. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Balance:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

But, there is more. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.

Also, Avoid gossip and feedback loops:

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

Bare in mind however that they are a Public figure:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.

We also have a guideline about using non-english sources. They are only acceptable if there is no other english source of equal quality.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.

• When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote.

When addressing accuracy disputes involving citations to non-English sources, a translation of the relevant portions of the original may be provided in a footnote, as a courtesy.

Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

I am concerned here because the entire section is sourced to non-english references with no translation being made available. I, myself, would question their use in this way. One, maybe two, if they present material not found elswhere that is absolutely needed in the article for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. This seems to me to be too much. But the thing that worries me the most is that this entire section and criticism is based on a single documentary even with the references. I would say this may well be a minority view at the moment and should not be included at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply and for helping me with the edit. Following your last point, I will also endeavor to find more English sources in general. It is a bit difficult with these skiers though, since most of the attention they get is in Nordic newspapers. Nje1987 (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

They are not unacceptable, but we should use care when using them. My main issue is with non english sources (for this type of article)being used for obscure information. The major issue here is whether or not the doping allegations are yet notable enough to mention. Happy editing and Welcome to the Teahouse!--Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thanks again. I'll try to use non-English sources only when English ones are unavailable. I'll continue trying to improve these articles. I agree with your assessment of the doping allegations. Nje1987 (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Internal links in Infoboxes.

I am working on a Infobox president where the "office2=" is "office2=Mayor of Vienna" The result is a redLink because the page to be linked title is "List of mayors of Vienna". If I use a piped link (without bracket, because they show up), everything that appears after the pipe character is omitted. So, if I write "office2=List of mayors of Vienna|Mayor of Vienna" I get the link "List of mayors of Vienna", which is not what I want to see. Thanks in advance. Carlotm (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

hi, i see you're on the advanced topics of infoboxes. i believe that in the office holder you need to put [[Mayor of Vienna]] (with brackets) and the redirect will take it to the list article. (and no not in the documentation). sometimes, it's easier to cut and paste from an example like Michael Häupl.--Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 01:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it works and without brackets. But the question is not yet solved because I wanted something more. Sorry for not having fully explained this before. Because of the complicated history of Austria, I wanted the reader to see this: “Mayor of Vienna (Second Republic)” or even better: “Mayor and State Governor of Vienna (Second Republic)”. Do you have any suggestions as how to link this text to the page “List of mayors of Vienna”? Thanks.Carlotm (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You can link any text to any link by using a pipe:  |  to separate the two items, for example:

[[List of mayors of Vienna|Mayor and State Governor of Vienna (Second Republic)]]

looks like:  Mayor and State Governor of Vienna (Second Republic) — and links to List of mayors of Vienna

~Is this what you had in mind?   ~I hope this helps, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. Yes, this is what I want to achieve. But if I do what you suggest I see this [[Mayor and State Governor of Vienna (Second Republic)]]. The link correctly send you to List of mayors of Vienna. The double brackets are fully visible though. If I do what you suggest without the brackets, I get List of mayors of Vienna. Neider is good. Carlotm (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think the problem might relate to using a template which pre-formats the parameter as a link, therefore the brackets become redundant. You might try it without the brackets, but I suspect that the "pipe" character would be a problem, in which case I would have to defer to somebody else with more knowledge on such things. ~Regards, ~Eric 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The documentation is at Template:Infobox president#Usage. You didn't link to the article or give the full infobox code but maybe the problem is that you have an order2 parameter and therefore needs to write office2=List of mayors of Vienna{{!}}Mayor and State Governor of Vienna (Second Republic). If this doesn't work then please post the full infobox code so we can see what goes wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your indication was just right in point. Thank you very much.Carlotm (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Book that is part anthology

I'm working on The Age of Intelligent Machines. It's a 600 page book that is mostly a monograph. But it contains about 23 stand-alone essays, from 2 to 15 pages in length. I have the main content of the book mostly summarized. I'm wondering about the essays. Right now I have an organization section which just lists the authors of all the essays, which I think is kind of boring but I guess useful for searches. I'm thinking of maybe including mini-summaries of 3-4 of the essays which are by the more "famous" authors. Is this fair, should I briefly summarize them all, or just not summarize any. I realize I can do whatever, but just wondering what would make the best article, in WP terms. Silas Ropac (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Silas, welcome to the Teahouse! Are any of the essays well known, or discussed at length in reviews of the book? If not, you might be better just leaving them out (beyond the listing of authors you have already included). Sometimes an article is clearer and more readable if some relevant but unimportant information is left out. Obviously it comes down to judgement and there's no right or wrong answer. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. No review mentioned the contents of the essays, just that they were there and who some of them were by. Yeah I would say leave them out, at least for now, thanks. Future generations can always add them in. Silas Ropac (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Choosing pages to edit

How do I find a list of the most popular pages within a subject area so that I know where to edit first? Is it possible to see lists of topics that are most often searched but have no pages or very short/inaccurate pages? More broadly, I'm looking for tips on how to make more high-impact edits. RoenTree (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the Teahouse with your question. You can use http://stats.grok.se/ to see view counts. I would suggest chosing subject areas you are interested in and then check the view counts. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Is there an easier way to compare multiple pages than searching each individually? For example, is there some tool I could use to see highest- and lowest-traffic pages in the category Flora of Washington? RoenTree (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not that I know of.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't really answer your question, but another useful page that shows articles needing editing is "Getting started" Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey RoenTree. For not-yet-created articles with the most incoming red links, sorted by year (though not by category), please see Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. Note that while it contains 2013-12 entries, older entries can be found at Wikipedia:MWA/old. For not-yet-created articles in categories (but with no indication of "wanted" status), please see Wikipedia:Requested articles. Finding existing articles by category that are in dire need is more hit or miss. You could just explore articles that are stubs and marked with a stub template in a specific area of interest. For example I note that you seem to have edited articles on rivers in Washington State and although there's no perfectly refined stub template for that I can find, you might explore Category:Washington (state) geography stubs (and see the nested lower stubs in that parent category by county). Also, some Wikipedia:WikiProjects maintain lists of wanted and missing articles as well as a list of article in their ambit they deem most in need of work. See. e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, RoenTree! If you're interested in plants in general, then WikiProject Plants might be a useful place to look at. They have a list of popular pages about plants, which has the page views as well as the article's quality. Also, if you look under statistics, there's a table of articles by quality and importance, so you could pick out stubs and start-class articles (the two lowest quality classes) which have been classified by project members as high or mid in importance. The Plants WikiProject also maintain a list of requested plants. Hope this is useful! Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your detailed replies. I will look at those pages for some more ideas of where to edit first. RoenTree (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What advice can you give on errors noted?

Hi. I submitted an article on my second visit and came here to view questions and responses. Good stuff - and lots to learn! I think my article is properly positioned for review, but at the bottom are a couple of notes:

• Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move).
• Warning: A page with this title exists. Please make sure that this proposed article does not already exist or that it does not need to be moved to a different title.

There's also a red note about a missing reference, but I have subsequently removed all the citations (I think) and replaced them with hot links to URLs because they are easier to use and less trouble to create.

I have done a fairly extensive re-write over the past few days and assume the readers will access the latest, which is the cleanest and most suitable for review. Please advise.

Thanks! Alkoller (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Inline citations WP:ILC are the way to go and are easy to insert using the tool 'cite' at the top of the edit box. See referencing for beginners WP:REFB for how this tool works.

The red line is because you had one reference left in the text and you did not have a reference section to 'hold' it... I have added that. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks VERY much. Getting there one step at a time! 70.119.189.6 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing the tags for clean up projects

Hi Team,

Can someone help me with a guide or knowledge base which would help to remove tags made "This article may contain original research." or "This article needs more links to other articles". Would love to be more active on clean up projects. Appreciate your assistance.

Thanks, YaseenHalfLifeKiss 19:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfLifeKiss (talk • contribs)

Thanks, this can be closed. I found out from one of the answers below.HalfLifeKiss 19:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfLifeKiss (talk • contribs)

Hi HalfLifeKiss and welcome to the Teahouse! Great, you're question has been answered. Feel free to come back any time you need help. Happy editing, Go Phightins! 20:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing the name of a page.

HI, Can you please help me by correcting the name of the page Shamba Joshi as "Sham Ba Joshi". Sham Ba Joshi is a kannada writer whose actual name is Shankararaav Baaladeekshit Joshi. So i felt "Sham Ba Joshi"(as it is the same in kannada) much appropriate than Shamba Joshi and I dont know to correct it myself. Thank you. Srinidhisu (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Moved to the top of page.^King Jakob _C2 18:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse! If you look at the row of buttons near the edit button and look right from there, you'll see the view history button, a star-shaped button, then a gray arrow. If you click on the gray arrow, you should see an option saying move. But unless the rename (called a move on Wikipedia) is uncontroversial, it's best to discuss it on the article's talk page (alternately, the page of a relevant WikiProject). ^King Jakob _C2 18:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Srinidhisu, welcome to the Teahouse. Doing a very quick Google search shows that the English version of Shamba Joshi is far more common that Sham Ba Joshi. Not very scientific I know but enough to make me think that a move without further discussion might not be the way to go at the moment. If you think that it's imperative that it's moved I suggest that you start a discussion at Talk:Shamba Joshi explaining why the move should be made and ask others for their opinions. Leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics might also help get you some other editors involved. NtheP (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Updating a web address

Hello, Please advise a complete novice. I have offered to keep up to date the Wikipedia entry for a local historic house. Its website address has recently changed, and when I deleted the old one and tried to type in the new one, all I got instead was the number [1] in square brackets and a faint blue arrow. When you click on the arrow, you are immediately taken to the correct website, but it would be better to show the full address, I think. Perhaps my problem arises because [1] is also one of the references cited in the text and shown as a footnote. Apologies if I have not used the correct jargon. Llandafflady Llandafflady (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Llandafflady, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you entered something like this [http://www.google.com] and it came out as [5]? External links like this have a two part format of [web_address display_text] (note the space in between the two elements, so if like I think you did then you didn't put anything in for the second element hence it just showing as [1]. If you change your entry to [http://www.google.com www.google.com] or [http://www.google.com Google] then you should get your desired effect like these www.google.com or Google. NtheP (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Links to web site in an article

Dear editors: Is it okay to have links to personal or band web sites in the middle or an article? Here's an example: Podunk Bluegrass Festival? If not, should I remove the links and leave red links? I have no way of knowing which links are to notable musicians. Is it proper to add the links to the list of external links instead? For a bluegrass festival, that link list would be very long after a few years. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, I would be strongly inclined to remove those sort of external links. At worst they look like they are promoting the musician's website. They're not links that form part of a reliable citation and they're not links to websites directly controlled by the Festival. I wouldn't add them to a list of External links either, for the same reasons. See WP:ELNO. Well spotted! Sionk (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Very many thanks for this helpful and speedy response. It did the trick!Llandafflady (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Contents

Hi,

I was just wondering how you create a contents when creating an article.

Thanks Zoe Xlucky charmx (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zoe. Once you've created enough subheadings (off the top of my head I think it's four) a table of contents will appear automatically. If you have fewer headings than that, you can add the code __TOC__ to the page at the point where you want the contents list to appear (that's two underscores on either side, by the way). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Zoe. If by "contents" you mean a table of contents (TOC), then one is automatically generated when the article has more than three section headers. You can also force its display when there's less than three, but this is rarely used.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional information re film biography

Hi, im new here so forgive me if this is the wrong place to put this info / question, I have just watched a film named Reign of Fire (2002) and spotted an extra in it, namely Joffrey Baratheon from Game of Thrones actor Jack Gleeson. He is not named in the credits, nor is it listed on his film biography on IMDB or Wiki, but it is clearly him.... (search Jack Gleeson Reign of Fire and view images) just thought i'd bring it to the attention of someone more Wiki-capable to possibly edit his page (Panthara82 (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Panthara82, welcome to the Teahouse. Unless there is a reliable third party source that credits Gleeson with a role in this film then it's not information that should be added to his biography here. I'm not questioning your recognition of him, it's just that wikipedia doesn't work on "I know it to be correct" type additions. NtheP (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing Article Title

How do you change the title of a submitted article if there was a typo error? Thanks... Rosexcel (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rosexcel. You move the page to the correct title, in exactly the same way as you moved it from your sandbox into article space. Normally this will leave a redirect at the old spelling; if you want this removed altogether, you can tag it with {{db-g6}} (or just ask me nicely and I'll delete it for you!). Yunshui 雲‍水 09:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Woah, scratch that. I've just realised you want to list the page as "eFans", with a lowercase E - to do that, rather than move the page, you need to add the text {{lowercase title}} to the top of the page. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advice. The title is now eFans :-)

By the way, I noticed that the URL is still EFans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFans_%28social_network%29

I tried moving it again just in case the URL will become lowercase but it did not happen. Any idea?

Thanks. Rosexcel (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained further. Due to technical restrictions, article titles always start with a capital letter (the page is still actually located at EFans (social network), hence the URL remains the same) - what the {{lowercase title}} template does is force the first letter of the title to display in lowercase. Searches for "eFans" (as opposed to "EFans") will still find the page without difficulty. You can't actually create a page called "eFans"; the software just won't let you do it. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Based on my experience, I don't think it's possible to change the case in the url. I haven't seen a single article with a first letter in lowercase in the url. Anyway, readers don't usually type the title in the url, they do a web search and the first thing that comes up is the wikipedia entry or they rather use the wikipedia search. In case you were wondering, even if you type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/eFans_(social_network) in the address bar the same page will open up. Hope this helps. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the info :-) Rosexcel (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

All of that said, the page still probably needs to be retitled. The best title to locate it at would be Efans (with the code {{DISPLAYTITLE:eFans}} located at the top of the page instead of {{lowercase title}}). You should then create redirect pages at EFans, EFans (social network) and probably EFans.com to direct anyone finding those pages to the correct title. There's no need to have the "(social network)" addendum, since there are no other sites names eFans to disambiguate it from. Ask me for a hand if you need help with any of this. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Creating a shorter URL to a Wikipedia page

Hi, all -

I have created a Meetup subpage to let Wikipedia users know about an edit-a-thon that is being hosted by my university. Is there a way to create shorter URL... I suppose aliases could be the word?... for long Wikipedia page addresses?

At the moment, it's difficult to direct interested students to wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup: etc, etc, and it would be easier to be able to say wikipedia.org/something concise. I hope I'm explaining myself reasonably well.

Is this something that is possible to do?

Just curious - thanks for any help you can provide! Czarinanc (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Heya Czarinanc, have you thought of a service like bit.ly? --Jayron32 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I did, didn't know if there was a more efficient Wikipedia-provided solution, but if that's the easiest route, I can certainly try it. Thanks! Czarinanc (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Czarinanc. I don't know if you're going to say "duh" to some of this but if you're just worried about length of what people are viewing, then there's a few things to know. Any link on Wikipedia can be linked using wikilinks, instead of a URL, by enclosing the title in doubles brackets. So we can shorten it in that fashion:

• [[Wikipedia:Meetup/unc edit-a-thon]] (which produced Wikipedia:Meetup/unc edit-a-thon) is shorter than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/unc_edit-a-thon

Wikilinks can also be piped to anything you want people to view. A piped link is one where the text displayed for the link is different than the title of the page, and is placed by placing a pipe (one of these → |) between the page name and the display name. For example:

• If you type: [[Wikipedia:Meetup/unc edit-a-thon|edit-a-thon]] the displayed text when you save will be edit-a-thon.

You can also make a URL display whatever text you'd like, by placing the URL in single brackets (not doubled ones, as used for wikilinks), with a blank space after the URL followed by the the text to be displayed. For example:

• If you type: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/unc_edit-a-thon edit-a-thon] the displayed text when you save will be edit-a-thon.

Finally, if you need to post a link on some other site to the URL of the Wikipedia page, the same sort of trick to display whatever you'd like is available through HTML:

• <a href="url">Link text</a> is the form, so: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/unc_edit-a-thon">edit-a-thon</a> will do the trick.

Hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another URL option is that "enwp.org" redirects to wikipedia so for example; to link to Wikipedia:Meetup/unc edit-a-thon just use "http://enwp.org/Wikipedia:Meetup/unc_edit-a-thon". -- Cheers, Riley 07:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WP is a case insensitive namespace alias for the Wikipedia namespace so http://enwp.org/wp:Meetup/unc_edit-a-thon also works. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Button to submit for review disappeared

After composing my draft article for creation, I saved it but I edited it a few times afterwards. Along the way, I accidentally must have done something that removed the box that says submit article for review.

This is my article for creation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EVFIT_%28Federation%29

Since I could not find the submit for review button, I used the move operation but it ended up here. Still there was no button for submission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EVFIT_%28Federation%29

What shall I do to submit this for review when I do not see the submit button?

Thanks for your help.Rosexcel (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rosexcel, welcome to the Teahouse. You removed the box with the submission link in [6]. I have restored the box so you can submit by clicking the link. The page has been moved back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EVFIT (Federation). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ros and welcome!

 Done I moved the page at least 3 times (with the last move by PrimeHunter.) I submitted the article by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page (that's how you can submit it to Articles for creation.). I also even reviewed the article so you don't have to wait for 2,000 other articles. Unfortunately, it has been declined. If you need any help with anything else, leave me a message on my talk page or e-mail me and I am happy to help. Both links are located conveniently in my signature. Happy editing! JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 03:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt response and for acting on my first draft. Looking forward to learning many things here. Rosexcel (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

How to align tables

Dear editors: On my List of fiddlers I have some tables near the bottom of the page which have multiline table entries. I would like the cells in the tables to align to the top. I tried adding valign="top" to the table description, but it seemed to have no effect. Am I putting it in the wrong place? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

hi, i see you're an experienced editor if you're tackling tables. ok, i see if you research, you need to put valign="top" at each row; i did the american style section.

also you might want to combine the tables into one, and let readers sort using sortable titles. (i.e. make the style sections into another field that people could sort by). more info here Help:Table/Sortable tables. also check out Template:Sortname, which will sort name field by last name. i've been known to cut paste all this code into spreadsheet; and use concatenate and fill functions to arrange; then cut paste back.Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a sortable table at the top of the article, and it did allow me to remove the "Fiddlers by nationality" groups, but it doesn't sort the styles properly because many fiddlers play more than one style. These tables are just flatfiles. Also, I intend to put anchors beside each group and link them to the articles about fiddling styles. I am not a really experienced Wikipedia editor, but I have a lot of experience with computer and web applications and programming, so mainly my questions are about the interesting formats and policies peculiar to Wikipedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

well, table syntax is a bear, and the documentation is poor, so you are above average. yes, normally tables prefer one value per cell and simple rows. you might consider column span multiple rows [7], but that duplicates artist name. the elegant solution is one table, but it's ok as is. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 02:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia visited link's color : needs to be changed

Hi!

I noticed that the current color for visited links makes visited links hard to spot after being visited. I strongly recommend that visited links stay the SAME color as unvisited links. (I'm not even color blind)

I'm not sure it's something that can be changed easily...

Also, talking about links, I would also like to suggest that:

-Links color be change to a more visible and contrasting color. It can be hard to distinguish a link from plain text, especially on aging or older LCD monitors (or users).

-Hovered links could also change color, no just be underlined. It would provide a stronger visual "haptic" feedback.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirusdark (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)